Process

So, how do we train people to deliver a speech? There is deliberate speech delivery. Giving a speech with a pre-constructed plan going into it to that is specifically designed to be used during speech. To conduce good results. Then there is spontaneous speech delivery, giving a speech without such a plan. Both are essential to speech. We teach people how to deliver a speech by teaching them both of these aspects and their functions. Deliberate speech delivery, the fundamental aspect of speech, should be mastered first, however. And it should be understood why it is the basis.

Overview

Speech delivery involves 3 parts: construction, cognition, and execution. You have to construct the speech. Then you have to be cognizant of it and its key parts when delivering it. Then you have to actually deliver it, keeping its structure in mind while executing its content. Each of these processes is very difficult.

We create a distinction between deliberate speech delivery, which must be mastered first, and spontaneous speech delivery. Deliberate speech delivery is speech delivery that is fully planned, and for which pre-existing hierarchical speech structures or outlines have been created (specifically for the purposes of speech), committed to memory, and are used. Deliberate speech delivery is the essence of all speech delivery, as speech by definition is supposed to be deliberate. Spontaneous speech delivery thus tries to emulate it to the best of its ability, and can do so in various ways. Spontaneous speech delivery is speech that is in some way delivered without a pre-existing mental outline created for the specific purpose of speech. We will cover both.

Construction requires attention to be paid not only to the content of the idea, but also its relation to the spoken format of speech delivery. A speech has to be designed for the exact nuances of speaking.

Cognition requires an awareness of those ideas to be present in the mind of the speaker when they are speaking. To be aware of what they are saying, what they will say next, and how it all fits together. This is a process aided by construction, because those ideas should have been laid out in a way that fosters ease of use and manipulation. Then there is execution.

Execution is actually delivering those ideas in an intelligible fashion. Keeping the structure in mind. Knowing how to speak while also keeping a detailed layout of one’s ideas that’s modern and up to date. All of these aspects incorporate elements that tap at the core of speech itself and its history.

History of Speech

The history of speech is defined by writing and ideas. Speech draws upon these two things immensely. Speech at its core has to do with ideas. Because speech is fundamentally a way of expressing ideas.

Writing is also closely related to speech. It is another way of expressing ideas. An understanding of writing is fundamental to understanding speech because speakers often structure their thoughts with writing. Speech’s history and techniques have been thoroughly refined and based heavily on writing. And an understanding of different ways of expressing ideas, one of the two ways, can help with the understanding of expressing ideas in the first place, which is at the core of speaking. Speech at its core is the expression of ideas.

Nature of Speech

These techniques are complex and difficult to learn. And because they have to do with the raw expression of ideas, they are difficult to teach in formats other than direct ones. Teaching people about the raw expression of ideas using a format other than the direct raw of expression of ideas itself is difficult.

Not only that. Speech is the live expression of ideas. Writing, by contrast, is the reflective expression of ideas. Teaching people how to express their ideas live in a format other than the live expression of ideas itself is one step too far removed for any real substantial progress to be made in the great majority of cases unless one already has what what would constitute a firm grasp on the subject. It can be done and self-taught, but to learn it from others a format that is agreeable is necessary.

And there’s more. Speech is not just the live expression of ideas but the live, two-way expression of ideas. Speech is always designed to be heard by others live. It’s different from writing where there is no live communication. You will write something, and then publish it, but you will not interact with the audience live as you write. Speech is always two-way. Not only will you adjust the content of your speech during discourse, but there is something else as well.

Even when monologuing, speech is still two-way. A speaker giving a speech to an audience on a stage is participating in two-way communication, live, as he speaks. The audience is giving feedback live. Through how they react. And the speaker adjusts his speech. The audience will sometimes look confused so the speaker speaks more about that idea. The audience will look excited so the speaker gets to the point more quickly. The audience provides non-verbal feedback that is taken into account by the speaker and they must adjust the content or structure of the speech to account for this.

The speaker must do this deliberately. The speaker must adjust the content of their speech based off of the input of this live, two-way form and adjust the content of their speech deliberately, on purpose, matching the adjustments that should be made. It is a conscious and practiced effort, conscious in the same way that a speaker must have a grasp on what they’re saying. The live, dynamic, two-way nature of speech, including giving one in a monologue, is so fundamentally opposed to writing and learning other things because it is the raw expression of live, dynamic, two-way ideas. If you think about math, it too can be boiled down to if it must to the reflective expression of ideas. Speech cannot be. Certain formats are more agreeable to this fact.

What is the expression of ideas? It is an idea being made intelligible to humans. If ideas exist in their own right, then expressing them is the domain of speaking and writing. The two are fundamentally opposed to each other. Good speakers are not good writers. The reflective nature of writing is not conducive toward the dynamic and enterprising nature of speech. The dynamic nature of speaking requires an incredibly dynamic understanding of the ideas behind the speech in a way that is totally foreign to writing.

And an understanding of ideas in writing similar to how one would understand ideas in speaking would only detract from the reflective nature of writing. It would detract from the purpose of writing. Which would make it meaningless.

The skillsets for speaking and writing are totally different, and do not complement each other. Writing has to do with the reflective expression of ideas. Speaking has to do with the dynamic expression of ideas. The only thing the two have in common is that they both express ideas. But the way they do this is totally different. Speaking is its own huckleberry.

Speech is designed with the knowledge that both the speaker and the listener will have mere seconds to receive, process, and reflect over the information. Constantly changing. Writing is designed with the knowledge both will have much longer, minutes, days, even many days, to contemplate the ideas, and will likely use much of it. The techniques and methods for both are thus fundamentally different and dissimilar, and must be mastered and considered separately.

You are speaking when you are speaking, and you are writing when you are writing. And you are always speaking when you are speaking. And always accordingly only writing when you are writing.

Having talked about an overview of speech and its nature and history, a detour might be taken. Before delving fully into the process of speech delivery, into the process of speaking, it may be helpful to go over the meaning and essence of speech itself.

What is Speech?

When talking about delivering speech and its content, it can help to better understand the entire meaning behind it. What is speech? What is its purpose? Why speak? And on the contrary, why listen to others? Why listen to them speak? What is conversation?

People speak because they want to convey a certain viewpoint on the world. They want to illustrate a certain viewpoint about the world.

Why do people listen to others speak? We want to hear what they have to say. Why? Why do we want to share our viewpoint on the world?

All questions and answers are a set of answers to a much larger question. The unity of which will provide a complete answer. During a speech with a Q&A, the speaker gives a speech, and after that the audience asks questions. For example, during a technology speech about the state of the new iPhone, a speaker will discuss the new features it will have, its power, and its domination over Android. This is already an answer to a large question. The audience will ask further questions about the new iPhone. The speaker will answer. The speaker will ask the audience questions. The audience will answer. It is all an answer to one big question. The questions the audience asks are an answer to the big question. The questions the speaker asks are all an answer.

When a speaker speaks, they are answering questions about that bigger question. When a speaker asks a question, he is providing an answer to that bigger question. The audience provides an answer through their answer. Imagine one friend visiting another friend’s new apartment. Person A has recently redecorated. He has just let B into the apartment and is greeting him. He starts giving a speech about the state of his room and why he put it together like this. Then about the walls and why he kept some of them with empty space. He then asks Person B if he is a fan of walls and empty space in room decor.

All of this interaction is an answer to a much bigger question. In this case, it is, “How do I get across that I enjoy seeing Person B, how do we get along, and maintain a productive relationship, and be friends?” Showing him the apartment seemed like a good idea, and also asking a question seemed like another good idea. Person A was monologuing for quite a bit about walls and interior design. Asking her if she appreciated the design answered the bigger question because it showed Person A cares about her opinion, if they should keep talking about the apartment decor design or if it’s boring, and gives them a chance to speak. It provides answers to the bigger question that’s posed. In short, Person A asked a question to provide an answer, and wanted person B to provide an answer to that same question, because person A believed her response would be valuable in answering that question.

Alternatively, everything that is done can be thought of as a series of questions to one answer. In this case, A and B’s interaction was all a series of questions to the answer. The answer is “Person A and B, I and Person B, we are designed to be friends.” Then everything they did in that scenario was a series of questions to that answer. “Is it true that we are designed to be friends? If so I should be able to welcome you into my apartment and greet you, and show you my apartment and its decor. Can I do that? Can I welcome you into my apartment? Can I greet you? Can I show my my decor? Can I ask you a question to make sure you’re comfortable talking as well and to show I want you to talk?” The answer is “Person A and B are designed to be friends.”

Either manner of thought about the philosophy is fine. The point is that the theme is understood.

And the point is that the reason people hold conversations, give speeches, and ask and answer questions, is to answer the much larger question overhead, or to ask questions to the much larger answer overhead.

With that brief overview finished, a look at the actual process of speaking can be undertaken. This is the process of deliberate speech delivery. The basis of speech. Speaking consists of 3 parts. Construction, cognition, and execution. Including deliberate speech delivery.